Standards

[good samaritan]

If you have male children and they decide to wear dresses then I suppose that would be fine if they were tailored to fit them. Deuteronomy wouldn't apply there either I suppose.

I took the comment you made as having sexual content, but if it that was not what you meant then I am sorry also.

[allstate1]

My post did mean something sexual! As for as male children wearing dresses well yea that wouldn't be right. But Deut. 22:5 is talking about cross dressing. Dressing as opposite sex to fool or trick!

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by allstate1

Maybe the problem is within yourself! I was in the mall of Louisiana last weekend and honestly I never paid attention to any ladies apparel save one that was in see through yoga pants. My only thought was how in the world can she wear that in public. Not one lustful thought!!!! If you are worried about seeing things you better stay home! You can't stop a bird from flying over your head but you can stop him from building a nest in your hair!

Maybe the problem is within myself. I guess I have problems because when I see attractive women wearing clingy clothes I am tempted to look. I don't have vulgar thoughts. I don't let it get that far. I don't like the temptation of the second look. I feel wrong for that desire to look again. Maybe I do just have problems. Do you feel o.k. to look as long as you don't have a vulgar thought?

I view the desire to look again as lust. It may be on a small level, but it is the little foxes that spoil the vines. The carnal nature of man will lead to greater sins.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by allstate1

My post did mean something sexual! As for as male children wearing dresses well yea that wouldn't be right. But Deut. 22:5 is talking about cross dressing. Dressing as opposite sex to fool or trick!

For my family it is really cross dressing.

[allstate1]

You are created with the desire to procreate we all know that men are visual by nature. How for and how long you look before feeling "guilty" is a personal thing. But to put the burdon on women to control there look to prevent a man from sinning is a little barbaric.

[allstate1]

Also there is a huge difference in seeing a woman and thinking she is attractive and looking at her and thinking I gotta get me summa that!

[n david]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

If you have male children and they decide to wear dresses then I suppose that would be fine if they were tailored to fit them. Deuteronomy wouldn't apply there either I suppose.

If you read into Deuteronomy 22:5, it's not about pants vs dresses/skirts. The Hebrew word, "Keliy," is the word for "that which pertaineth," and is commonly translated for weapon, armor, instrument. The Hebrew word for man in this verse is "Geber" and is commonly translated for warrior or strong man. It's important to note the use of "Geber" and not the use of "Iysh," (such as in verse 13) which means "man/male."

This goes much deeper than the debate over pants vs dresses/skirts. This is, IMO, about authority and the role of men and women. Many scholars say this is a prohibition against Jewish women dressing in battle armor like the pagan women did; and also a prohibition against men cross-dressing like a women as was much the custom of pagan temple men.

The verse, according to the Hebrew translation is:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,

“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:

“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'”

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”

Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...”

Again, I believe this is more about the authority/role of men and women than it is about some silly pants/dress debate.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I took the comment you made as having sexual content, but if it that was not what you meant then I am sorry also.

You are correct, it did, which is why I tried to post as little as possible and include no details.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

If you read into Deuteronomy 22:5, it's not about pants vs dresses/skirts. The Hebrew word, "Keliy," is the word for "that which pertaineth," and is commonly translated for weapon, armor, instrument. The Hebrew word for man in this verse is "Geber" and is commonly translated for warrior or strong man. It's important to note the use of "Geber" and not the use of "Iysh," (such as in verse 13) which means "man/male."

This goes much deeper than the debate over pants vs dresses/skirts. This is, IMO, about authority and the role of men and women. Many scholars say this is a prohibition against Jewish women dressing in battle armor like the pagan women did; and also a prohibition against men cross-dressing like a women as was much the custom of pagan temple men.

The verse, according to the Hebrew translation is:

Again, I believe this is more about the authority/role of men and women than it is about some silly pants/dress debate.


You are correct, it did, which is why I tried to post as little as possible and include no details.

I believe the passage is focusing on homosexuality more than authority of men and women.

Several reasons for that.

1) If you look at the word hâyâh - "wear" in Deut 22:5, it means both in Strong's being confirmed for that particular passage in BDB as "to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out".

Obviously, that definition reaches much deeper than "wear" defined in other places in the OT as lâbash/lâbêsh H3847 "to dress, wear, clothe, put on clothing, be clothed".

2) "pertaineth to" in BDB: kelı̂y H3627 - "specifically of garments (one's 'things'): כְּלִיגֶֿבֶר Deuteronomy 22:5". That correlates with Strong's word possibilities as "dress".

3) "man" is defined in BDB: "man as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants whom he is to defend, chiefly poetic Exodus 10:11; Numbers 24:3,15 (E) Exodus 12:37; Joshua 7:14,17,18 (J) Deuteronomy 22:5". This also correlates with Strong's word possibilities as "geber" H1397 - "generally a person simply:"

That doesn't make a strong case to be a "warrior".

Now, I want to know what these people are doing that makes what they are doing an "abomination". I have to look at the verb so see what they are doing. In the above definition of "wear", they are fundamentally changing their whole make-up "existing" in the role that they were not born to. That is homosexuality at best. That would be the abomination, IMO.

[Sean]

Its strange that Christian men can take their shirts off in public(bare chested)...

Why cant women?(bare chested)

Dont our Christian women have the same rights as men?

Or is something different between the sexes' that should remain covered for moral reasons?

Some christian men have no problem with women in bikini or halter tops.

Why wear them at all if upper body nakedness does not matter to God!

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Women wearing dresses all the time is the extra-biblical standard.
Modesty is biblical concept.
When women wear dresses, it does help men to not sin so easily.

Oh,c'mon this is the stupidest thing that IHAVE EVERheard, and I have heard Stupid